JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — This application is filed invoking jurisdic¬tion under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Code’), inter alia, praying to quash the order of cognizance dated February 1, 1999, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur, in G. R. Case No. 1160 of 1997.

2. The moot point which needs determination in the present case is, as to whether in the absence of a complaint as stipulated under Sec. 198 of the Code, there is any scope for taking cogni¬zance under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’). For appreciating the position of law, facts, which are verymuch necessary, are set herein below.

3. On the basis of an information lodged by Manjulata Padhi before the Officer-in-charge, Mahila Police Station, Berhampur, P. S. Case No. 57 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sec. 498-A, 494 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. which was subsequently converted to G. R. Case No. 1160 of 1997 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magis¬trate, Berhampur.

In the F. I. R. the informant alleged that she had married the petitioner on July 6, 1992 as per the Hindu Rites and Cus¬toms. Though the initial married life was blissful, subsequently dissension cropped up when the wife refused to give her educa¬tional certificate for a D. I. C. loan. It is alleged that being enraged, the husband drove her out of the house. She was pregnant at that time and on July 9, 1993 she gave birth to a male child. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile the petitioner has married for the second time.

The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A, 494 and 406/34, I.P.C.. The learned Magistrate, by order dated September 17, 1998 took cogni¬zance in consonance with the charge-sheet and issued process for appearance of the accused. The said order was impugned by the petitioner before this Court in Crl. Misc Case No. 5519 of 1998.

By order dated January 15, 1999, this Court disposed of the aforesaid application with a direction to the petitioner to renew his prayer before the learned Magistrate to reconsider and to recall the order of cognizance. On the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate reconsidered the matter and by order dated February 1, 1999, after a thread-bare discussion of the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as other documents, held that the charges under Sec. 498-A as well as Section 406, IPC are not tenable in law and the order taking cognizance of the offences under the said sections is barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate recalled his earlier order of cognizance so far as offences under Sec. 498-A and 406, IPC are concerned, but directed that the case shall proceed in respect of the of¬fence under Sec. 494, IPC. The said order as stated above is impugned in this case.

4. The sole point argued by Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this Criminal misc. case is that, the learned Magistrate erred in law in taking cognizance against the peti¬tioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 494, IPC in view of the specific bar under Sec. 198(1) of the Code. For appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to Section 198(1) of the Code which is quoted herein below :

“198. Prosecution for offences against marriage-(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence :

Provided that -

(a) Where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf;

(b) wh